Diwakar Prakash Mishra vs Shree Kant Mishra & Ors
- SCC(2009) 4 SCC 408
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Where an appeal becomes technically moot upon the occurrence of a supervening event (such as the retirement of the appellant), but the court has granted interim or consequential relief that touches the merits of the claim, the appeal should be decided on its merits with proper hearing to the parties rather than dismissed as infructuous without reasoned adjudication of the substantive issues in dispute.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Diwakar Prakash Mishra ...Appellant
VERSUS
Shree Kant Mishra & Ors. .. Respondents
ORDER
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal is directed against an order dated 3rd
of January, 2007 passed by a Division Bench of
the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad,
Lucknow Bench in Special Appeal No.489 of
2003 by which the appeal was dismissed with the
following directions:-
"We, therefore, while dismissing the writ petition as having lost its significance, after the retirement of the appellant, direct that since the appellant had throughout discharged the duties of Principal as official Principal, he shall be paid the salary of the given pay scale, after adjusting
1 the amount already paid. Such arrears shall be paid within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
The petitioner shall also be given all consequential benefits accordingly, as per rules."
3. From a reading of the order including the
directions made in the impugned order as noted
herein above, it would be clear that the High
Court had dismissed the appeal only on the
ground that since the appellant had retired as an
ad hoc principal, the appeal had become
infructuous. In our view, it is true that the High
Court had granted relief to the appellant to which
he otherwise could not get, by directing payment
of salary for the period he continued as an ad hoc
principal on the strength of the interim order. In
our view, the appeal, in the facts and
circumstances of the present case, ought to have
been decided on merits after giving proper
2 hearing to the parties. That being the position,
we set aside the impugned order and restore the
special appeal, which shall be decided by the
Division Bench of the High Court at an early date
preferably within three months from the date of
supply of a copy of this order to it and after
passing a reasoned order.
4. The appeal is thus allowed to the extent
indicated above. There will be no order as to
costs.
.........................J. [Tarun Chatterjee]
New Delhi; .........................J. February 16, 2009. [H.L.Dattu]
3
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free